Evolution vs. Revolution: A Progressive Game Plan for Change

I'm going to get to all the news of the day — and there's a ton of it — but this year, this show is going to be different again. Last year all we tried to do was figure out what was happening to our country. This year I've decided that the only way to move forward is to remember who we are and learn the history that the progressives have tried to erase.

Politico had several professors watch our special for them — no doubt to find all of the outrageous errors in it. They found none. But let me share two of the criticisms:

"Clemson University professor Steven Marks, author of 'How Russia Shaped the Modern World,' said that while Beck doesn't explicitly tie the left-wing totalitarian regimes of the past to contemporary liberals, that's what 'he's hinting at here.'

"'No one in their right mind is going to defend Stalin or Mao or Che Guevara,' Marks said. 'The implication is that this is what's going to happen if Democrats get their way. This is just a complete lie.'"

Wow, these poor professors had such a hard time finding anything wrong with our special that they had to go to "implied lies"? Can an implication be a lie? Besides that, what I'm really saying is: Open your eyes, Steven. The left is already defending people like Mao:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

ANITA DUNN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teeresa; not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most.

RON BLOOM, MANUFACTURING 'CZAR': We know that the free market is nonsense.... We know that this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

And let's not forget the lovely Mao ornament on a Christmas tree at the White House. But, I'm sorry, those are just examples from the Obama administration; nothing to worry about.

As for Che, we've seen the glorification of Che Guevara for years from the left: a "freedom fighter"; a champion of the worker. Now, if you're saying that none of these people are "in their right mind," maybe then, we're in agreement.

The Politico article had more "thoughtful criticism":

"Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Life at Boston College, said that the film not only isn't accurate, but that Beck 'lives in a complete alternative universe.'"

First, about the awkwardly phrased, "not only isn't" line, from Michael Calderone at the Politico — I mean, couldn't we not try to smooth out our sentence structure here: Not only isn't it smooth, it's also not un-confusing. But I digress. He continued:

"As an example, he said, Beck mentions how the Nazis supported programs like universal health care as evidence that their ideology may have more to do with the left than the totalitarian right. Nazi Germany was 'not evil because of their economic program,' said Wolfe, which he noted included a few programs designed to promote public health. 'It was evil,' he said, "because it aimed at the extermination of European Jewry.'"

Let's see Alan, who's pushing state-run health care right now? The left. That was the association, not that health care is what made the Nazi's evil. Now, obviously, a point can be made that totalitarianism starts with the government inserting itself into more and more aspects of our lives, right? But the underlying point I made in the documentary — and please, try to keep up here, Alan or to put it your way: What are you, in some sort of an "alternative universe?" — in our "alternate" universe, the right is continually associated with Nazis. That seems perfectly fine with all of the eggheads in this country. Unfortunately, that is the lie that we were exposing.

The progressives on the left have been excusing and defending brutal dictators from the beginning. The reason that the progressive movement went underground in the first place was their failed policies and support for evil dictators around the world. Progressives like George Bernard Shaw couldn't hide their admiration for them:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: Now, Signor Mussolini cannot take it off. He is condemned — although he is a most amiable man — he is condemned to go through life with that terrible and imposing expression which really does a great deal of injustice to his kindly nature.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Shaw gave us great insight into what they're doing: He talked about Mussolini's scary look but wanted America to know that he just looked scary; he really wasn't. After it became abundantly apparent to the world what sheer evil these people were supporting, progressives realized that, as George Bernard Shaw demonstrated on camera, they had to change their scary face.

That is until recently when the progressives again became arrogant.

Last week on radio, we were talking about the Beatles song, "Revolution." I believe the song was all about understanding how progressives had been operating:

You say you want a revolution. Well you know, We all want to change the world.

But how — how — do you go about changing the world, without waking up too many people who don't want your kind of "change"?

The key is in the lyrics:

You tell me that it's evolution. Well you know, We all want to change the world. But when you talk about destruction, Don't you know that you can count me out.

They lay out the plan nicely:

You say you'll change the Constitution. Well you know, We all want to change your head. You tell me it's the institution. Well you know, You better free your mind instead. But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.

The Beatles knew that openly defending Mao or attacking the Constitution, would be suicidal to the cause. That all this change needed to come through evolution not revolution, slowly, step by step. You can't just jump from Point A to Point Z without revolution. But you can evolve from A to B to C to D to E and so on.

And if progressives had continued to follow that playbook, we may never have known what we were up against. But they became arrogant and impatient. Either believing that their movement had progressed to the point where it couldn't be stopped or because there is absolutely no diversity of opinion in their circles, they just thought everyone felt as they do.

So Obama moved ahead at light speed with his agenda. And if not for appointing an avowed communist, Van Jones; if not for his communications director, Anita Dunn, singing the praises of Mao and his anti-capitalist, manufacturing "czar" Ron Bloom; if not for the arrogant anti-capitalist rantings of his most frequent visitor, Andy Stern and science "czar" John Holdren, we may have never known.

But we do know.

No one is saying that this administration is setting out to commit atrocities in America. What we are saying is we must be vigilant and watch for warning signs. Too much government is never desirable, it never brings more freedom.

They have shown us certain warning signs and it would be foolish for us to ignore those signs, but the danger is only really heightened when you couple radical revolutionary ideas with arrogance.

This isn't 1934 or even 1994. The difference is we have Barack Obama. If we're not careful, their arrogance will not only be their undoing but ours.